*1 wеre Burk 372 and 373 only held §§ made; no was DEARING,
inapplicable because transfer Harry Dearing, E. Ha I. Clara however, key real is that no Witcher, Mikkelson, case D. H. and Ani rold attempted made was made or to be Kamperman, individually trаnsfer Rogers and ta by a official.20 Rog City Will of W. G. Trustee under ers, deceased, Appellees, conveyance I there was Remy
In a and that transfer was City Council unauthorized, made an unlaw pursuant to Oklahoma, rel., ex COMMIS STATE of or attempted ful or void contract made OFFICE, LAND SIONERS OF by City be a official.. Because made Inc., Payne, a Delaware Helmerich & case, of applies in this an award properly Corporation, American Natural Gas Pro оnly per deny attorney’s fees as Burk would Carey Maguire, Company, M. in duction under provided reward the statute. Carey Maguire, dividually, M. Trustee Company, Carey Maguire for M. Ma Oil Judgment Judicata Estoppel by guire, —Res Ma for Russell Ambler Trustee guire, Maguire, Carey for M. Trustee The Johnson heirs are concerned Carey Maguire, Carey M. McIlawaine judge fact finding trial Maguire, Ambler Trustee for Melinda prop rental the reasonable value of Maguire, Carey Maguire, M. Trustеe erty period during they the ten held Maguire Maguire, Ann Blaine Oil Com the property will be asserted them Stuart, Gasandarko, pany, B. in a Daniel proceeding. judg later Because no Ltd., Arizona, Stephen National Bank of requestеd by City was ever Kahn, Appellants. B. against the Johnson heirs for the fair rental value,21we believe it would be premature No. question possible judicata answer the res Court of Oklahoma. Supreme or estoppel by judgment.22 AFFIRMED. 12, 1982. Jan. Dеnied March Rehearing BARNES, V.C.J., WILSON, Special C. JJ., Justice, OPALA, and concur. HODGES
IRWIN, LAVENDER, J. and SIMMS HARGRAVE, JJ., dissent.
WILLIAMS, J. certified disqualifica- his
tion. The Honorable M. WIL- CHARLES Special
SON appointed was Justice his
stead.
Williamson,
Sweeney
Corp.,
22.This
held
Smith
ex rel.
Court
ONG
(1953):
general
(1936).
Paul Oklahoma for Oklahoma, rel., appellant, ex State of Com- missioners of the Land Office. Andrews, Davis, Shepherd, James W. Bixler, Murrah, Legg, Milsten & Oklahoma City, appellant, for American Natural Gas Production Co. Gavras, Tulsa,
Leon C. appellants, for Inc., remaining all Payne, Helmerich & appellants. McMillin, Weatherford, Jr.,
Joe B.
appellees.
OPALA, Justice: At here of the issue correctness quieting trial court’s estate. a claimed mineral Un- challenge der below wаs owner- State’s ship underlying 798 acres of of minerals claim that of the or to State. two consists of litigation land. The land on here rests in contention a mineral title I, the “railroad known as tracts: 1,1945 conveying approxi- August strip of a sheriff’s deed covers a narrow strip”, sale in acres; following public their comprises Tract II tracts mately 16 the two counter- suit. remaining mortgage 782 acres. The State foreclosure title in the minerals quiet claimed to its thе resale is whether dispositive issue *3 By agree- underlying both of these tracts.1 did, April in suit on to the land tax deeds quiet-title claims parties of the the 1930, Dearing’s inter- 21, to divest operate The re- were all tried and decided first. fee cоunty the a to transfer est and alleged conversion maining tort claims—for have they did We hold that simple title. In this of minerals—stand undetermined. in law. that effect the sought relief is from appeal corrective tax deeds that the рlaintiffs The contend title claims. upon trial court’s decision the 1929 during years the (a) because were void title quieted plaintiffs’ The trial court county county tax assessor and 1930 a underly- in the minerals against the State to issue a authority treasurer was without The ing strip”. I—the “railroad Tract (b) by the property and lien on railroad its counterclaim as prevailed on com- the railroad own “admission” appeal is from the Tract II. The State’s I, of Tract the surface pany held title to no Tract I. adverse as to Since minerals in that Dearing owned the while appeal brought by plaintiffs, the was to this view. We cannot accede tract. here. to Tract II is not in contention ques in Althоugh conveyances in- the deraign their title and plaintiffs The 21, 1930, April they from tion were issued on terest in the surface and minerals law, were, resale tax deeds acquired in fact and Dearing [Dearing] John L. who against the valorem taxes assessed property by warranty the in 1926 deed.2 for ad unpaid Dear- the 1926. The any property The that interest of State asserts entire a lien the ing came to be taxes attached as to the surface or minerals on their face that the Roger Mills fee.3 The deeds show divested and transferred to 1926 tax lien— subject to the County [County] by resale tax deeds of land in suit— deeds, public auction 21, for sale at April 1980. These tax the State was first offered 7, There were no bids estab- on December 1927. argues, preclude the from again was property The superi- which is on that date.4 lishing themselves a title (j) company; 11/22/44—trial dispute to the railroad 1. a 2-acre There was another over judgment in foreclosure tract. it had no The trial court determined that court renders default suit in favor of quires State; jurisdiction initially (k) 8/1/45 —State ac- this The State over tract. ruling simple I and II at claimed but later fee title to Tracts error the trial court’s judgment. following foreclosure abandoned this contention. sheriffs sale by chronology county’s 2. The critical to this sale of transactions 3. The tax lien was foreclosed dispute quires (a) Dearing statutory confоrmity is: L. ac- scheme. 9/25/26 —John in Comp. with the simple I when fee title to the “Farm” —Tracts St. 1921 9724. The lien attaches II; redeemed, (b) Dearing mortgages due, prop- the the is and unless the tax 10/20/26— erty subject Land tax. “Farm” to the of the in satisfaction of the State/Commissioner to sale Office; 166, 1088, (c) Dearing “right-of- Baker, makes a 172 P. 1090 v. State [1918]; Phelps 2/9/28 — 310, way” conveyance Asplund, of Tract I to the railroad 184 87 Okl. company (recorded 5/23/29); (d) 134, 5/1/29— P.2d only; mortgage State releases its as to Traсt I (e) original County tax deeds to bids are received at issues resale When no 4/21/30 — county by “Farm”; sale, (f) By property to the 10/24/30 and stands sold deeds of Asplund, supra operation Phelps Dearing miner- of law. 12/12/30 transfers 3/iths of the Finney; (g) a cеrtificate 3 at 135. The issuance of als in the “Farm” to M. note following necessary Finney conveys original is not interest tax sale 3Athmineral 1/6/31 — proper- 1/17/31); perfect county’s purchase Rogers (recorded to ty. Oil Gas Co. 146, (h) Trope, brings 194Okl. 5/4/39 —State suit to foreclose its Culbertson v. Barrett, 159, (i) [1944]; Jepeway mortgage I II in which on on Tracts prejudice [1933]. 6/2/39 —State with files dismissal tax recites merely acquired offered for sale in 1930. The resale the railroad from deeds to the сounty April Dearing were issued an interest in the surface I February a deed dated 19298 and that the railroad been in had continuous deed, Dearing The which sur possession of the land. It further recites conveyed face of Tract I was to the rail conveyance that the did not railroad road, February was not until executed include minerals. delinquent At time the taxes for quantum of the railroad’s interest— already prop had become a lien on the whether mere easement or title to the erty. The railroad hence took the surface subject surface—was not the of the suit subject to the lien. That have lien could stipulation under review. The cannot be been, not, dischаrged timely but was by a viewed inconsistent with the notion that redemption. plaintiffs’ contention acquire whatever interest the railroad did neither county county assessor nor the impressed stood with a tax lien.9 The treasurer had authоrity to include rail *4 State’s railroad’s acknowledgment of the road property the resale deed is without continuing use of surface in I as a the merit. The railroad had no the interest in at right-of-way derogate does not all frоm surface at the time the lien had attached. legal the effect of the State’s claim. issued, When the tax passed resale deeds to county the fee I simple title in Tracts suit, this, In a title quiet such did, doubt, and II.5 The title without a plaintiff allege prove the must and that he short, include the mineral estate. In Dear- minerals, legal has an interest in the either ing’s interest in the fee came to be divest- equitable, plaintiff or the has no otherwise Dearing ed.6 stranger became a to title the quiet.10 prove title to If he cannot his title after the resale tax deeds were to issued property, adversary’s equally to de the his the county. He was hence out of chain the plain ficient will not do as a basis for of title when he convey undertook to the to recovery. plaintiff recover tiff’s The must plaintiffs the mineral estate in suit.7 title, strength on the of his own not on reject
We the the or of title.11 stip contention that a wаnt weakness defendant’s ulation found is the person record fatal to A who has no interest in the title to stipulation State’s claim. qui- The in issue property simply real cannot maintain Bingham Worley, 238, 5. v. 194 Okl. P.2d 9. The State does not admit here thе con- 149 that 253, [1944], veyance operated 255 vest in it railroad to distinguished title to the surface as from mere 583, Frederick, 6. Jenkins v. 208 Okl. P.2d 257 Treating granted easement. the interest so 1058, [1952]; Lee, 110, 1062 Hales v. 199 Okl. mere easement would not be with inconsistent 451, By 184 P.2d 453 a 1979 amend- [1947]. stipulation in the record that a “surface legislature quantum of limited the conveyed interest” had been to the railroad. property may conveyed by be a certificate quantum The of the railroad’s interest tаx or deed resale tax deed to the “. .. surface County surface of Tract I—as or rights and surface and mineral interests owned not a relevant issue in this case. State —is by rights. the owners of the surface .. tax certificate deed or resale tax deed not shall 137, 664, Reed, 10. v. 67 Okl. 168 P. Blanchard any convey by any other interest owned other Ireton, [1917]; Exchange 88 666 Trust Co. v. 1979, legal entity.” individual or Okla.Sess.L. 262, 309, 213 P. 310 (88 [1923]. Okl. O.S.Supp.1979 24323.1). c. 118 § 1 7. We need not reach here consideration Sutton, 117, 127 P.2d v. 191 Okl. Gilchrist 11. judgment— еffect of 1944 suit foreclosure Goeske, 163, [1942]; v. 164 Bridwell force which asserts title 656, 244, [1948]; 192 Robertson upon property Tracts I and the claimed II— 601, 678, Knighten, 139 P.2d plaintiffs. say interest of the Suffice it to Spurck, [1943]; Farr 248 P.2d Okl. extinguished by, their interest came to hence did not be [1952]; Independent Dist. No. School survive, the resale tax deeds Hunter, Okl., 8 v. 1930. 8. The record reflects the correct plaintiff rely
et title suit. While the must title, on his own he need not have a title The OKLAHOMAEDUCATION ASSOCI superior persons parties ATION, INC., Petitiоner, not to the suit. It suffices if he has some kind of an estate in the property, legal equitable, which is George NIGH, Spencer The Honorable paramount to that of the defendant.12 Bernard, Daxon, Tom Leslie Fisher and here lеgal cannot derive Craig, Jack as Commissioners of the any comfort from flaw in the title to Office, Respondents. Land the fee. In prevail they order to must show No. 57361. a mineral interest of their own. That min- eral interest was Dearings’ lost when the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. title to the “farm” became divested resale tax deeds. Feb.
Reversed and remanded with directions Rehearing Denied March quiet title in defendants below. IRWIN, J., BARNES, J., V. C.
HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, and
HARGRAVE, JJ., concur.
SIMMS, J., dissents.
SIMMS, Justice, dissenting.
I must Dissent. The majority, my
opinion, misapprehended has dispositive
issue in appeal. this It is May this:
state claim the mineral interest when its
title rests on a Sheriff’s Deed executed
pursuant to the 1944 mortgage foreclo-
sure—when the in question land WAS NOT
MORTGAGED? The mortgage had been
released discharged of record in 1929.
I would affirm the trial court’s
in favor of these (appellees). Okl., Langley, 666; Reneau, Welch v. 264 P.2d note 10 at Smith v. [1953]; Logan, Pearson v. [1953]; Reed, supra Blanchard v.